Talk:In the Pale Moonlight (episode)
Episode talk page Maintenance links __TOC__ In Background info - "In the Star Trek universe, it appears that the Dominion really did intend to invade Romulus, and (unsuccessfully) failed to stop the Romulans from finding out. Only Sisko and Garak know the truth of the matter, and erase all the evidence of it (including the log and, in essense, this entire episode)." - Is this correct? Sisko refers to Starfleet Command a number of times and I thought they even approved the plan. He would hardly lie to himself in his personal log, would he? Should this point be removed? Bswee 22:50, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Starfleet went so far as to approve the forged data rod. The murder of Vreenak was Garak's idea, and there's no indication that Sisko told them that. (Wouldn't be too hard to figure out though.) It does need to be changed. --9er 01:35, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC) Uncredited rewrite by Moore Does anyone have a source for the claim that Ronald D. Moore actually wrote this episode? -- Tough Little Ship 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC) : I think it was him. Michael Taylor got the credit for writing the original story where Jake found out something about Shakaar and his father told him not to publish it. -- DS9 Forever 08:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Star Wars Reference Two lines from the dialogue are possible Star Wars references: Garak wants Sisko to tell Vreenak that the data rod came at the loss of "ten good men" -- the loss of several Bothans was what convinced the Rebel Alliance that the second Death Star could be destroyed. Secondly, after Vreenak's death Dax and Bashir mention "a Romulan senator on a diplomatic mission", which was Leia's cover story when her ship was boarded by Darth Vader. -- The idea that the two are connected is a bit of a stretch. I think it was coincidental. Should it be erased? -- 04:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC) :I agree that this seems like speculation, and the author admits that these are only "possible" Star Wars references. Can anybody provide a citation showing that the production staff acknowledged that these references to Star Wars were inserted deliberately? Taduolus 09:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Fourth Wall? "In a unique directorial and writing turn for the series, the audience is faced with more than just the fourth-wall concept of television. Rather, the audience becomes interactive. All the while, Captain Sisko is recording a personal log regarding the events of persuading the Romulans. The series explores the complex side of values and principles and deals head on with the perils of altruism." I've removed this note, as I can't make sense of it. There seem to be three seperate points, all relatively unrelated to one another. The last sentence seems completely cut off from the rest of the sentences, and the third sentence isn't a grammatical sentence anyway. As well as that, the first two sentences are copied and pasted from a note in the BG section of the episode , which I also removed, as it was inaccurate. There does need to be some acknowledgment of the issue of the fourth wall, but I think the note I've added is a lot clearer than this one – Bertaut talk 02:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC) :You were right to remove that, for all the reasons you state. ("Interactive"?) On the fourth wall topic, breaking the fourth wall is more than just speaking to the camera. In this ep, there's a reason Sisko's talking to the camera: we have the POV of the camera recording Sisko's log. The only time that I can recall ST breaking the fourth wall is at the end of when McCoy turns to the camera and says, "Well, what do you know? I finally got the last word!" 9er 19:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Title origin I'm not convinced by the note suggesting that the episode's title is a quote from Dickens. The Batman reference seems more likely, seeing as how the episode is about Sisko's deal with the devil, in the form of Garak's ruthless plans, and his resulting struggle with the consequences of that deal. Since moonlight IS pale, I'd suggest that the fact Dickens used the phrase 150 years before Tim Burton is just a coincidence, and unless we have a direct reference from one of the writers stating Dickens rather than Batman as the source of inspiration for the title, this coincidence shouldn't be mentioned in the article. -AndroidFan 22:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC) :Is this a joke? The Batman line was a reference to Dickens in the same way the DS9 episode title was. Even if it wasn't, the writers of DS9 simply would not name an episode in reference to a 1989 movie about a comic book. This is as bad as the guy who demanded we include a note in the Schisms page saying how the name was an homage to Hellraiser. Its hard to even dispute the point, because you're so busy confusedly scratching your head trying to figure out exactly how you'll respond to the absurdity. Hossrex 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Well, as the author of the note, I'm obviously inclined to agree with Hossrex. But the fact is that the note doesn't suggest that the title is a quote from Dickens anyway, it merely points out that Dickens originated the phrase, which is simply a statement of fact. That is to say, his use of the phrase is the first recorded use of it in literature (yep, there are one or two phrases not coined by Shakspeare). But I would agree with Hossrex, the Dickens reference seems more likely than the Batman one. So if we're going to get pedantic about it, I would suggest removing the Batman reference and leaving the Dickens one! – Bertaut talk 19:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)